There are some pathways to increase wealth to a community and the nation.

One of the suggestions is to increase the tourism trade, which is a short term and quick way to ROI. However the business plan has to be in place first. The improvement or implementation of the infrastructure, building and maintaining hotels, service, transportation, and places of interest to attract the tourists.

LIke what has been often said: It is better to teach the poor how to fish, then to give them a fish.

It is not only to teach them how to fish, it is also providing them the facilities such as a boat, fish-finder and devices to detect the oxygen content of the water, the temperature, and conditions for growth of planktons.

But to take this community to another level higher, to teach them how to cultivate the fish, to have fish-farms and factories to make them in canned food, refrigeration process to prolong the storage life of the seafood, to make seashells into costume jewelleries and various sorts of art and crafts.

I wrote about a Nobel prize laureate in Bangaldesh who introduces micro-economics to the poor farmers and helped to turn around the poverty cycle.

Anyone with a postitive suggestion and a great story to tell can share it and win the Best Answer award.

Street Smart

Replying to [Foow]: There would be no need to teach macro economics to poor farmers. It would however benefit each new entrapaneur in the world if they understood micreconomics. But as I stated I believe that Street used the wrong word. It should have been micro-finanace and yes you assume correctly about the $8 loans to women. According to a recent report by BBC 60% of all micro-loans in Bangladesh are to women.

In simplest terms Micro is bottom up and Macro is top down. Goverments use Macro economics to control their economies and test strategies.

Best regards,
Ranger

Replying to [Street Smart]: Street, to answer your question globalisation can not break the poverty cycle. Sixer, lists a way within his own country and it is singular to his country because India is attempting to address their socioeconomic situation. But if we are truly talking about all countries globalization by itself will not break the cycle. Only if each nation first addresses their own socioeconomic situation can globalisation work.

Example:

Actually it is not the poor farmer who gains from a free economy it is the entity that has the money and credit to buy what the farmer sells and then exports making the money. Not until these entities start passing more profit on to the farmer.

Sixer, I hope you and your fellow nationals do not feel that IM singling India out but only using the example you stated in going forward with my perspective. The 2M dairies is a step but only one step if it does not include more and better schools, access to credit, health care, and improved living conditions. Again, IM not saying that this is not happening in India.

Street suggests tourism as a short term way to break the cycle. However, to break the cycle it must be sustainable. Tourism creates no real jobs but merely displaces workers from one form of work to another. Building of fine hotels in undeveloped or underdeveloped nations does nothing for 99% of its citizens. Paved roads do nothing for a farmer if he doesnt have a vehicle to move his products to a market or schools where his children can gain a better education. Breaking the poverty cycle can only be accomplished via a hand-up and not a hand-out.

As Aussie stated in another post China's implementation of JV's were key to its success in reducing poverty, however more and more companies are unwilling to to take such small stakes in ownership. Many more countries might take notice of SBE's willing to do business in their countries and form a better base for their populations. Brasil and now India have made it easier for SBE's in their countries to do business.

Best regards,
Ranger

Globalisation can never be achieved with developing nations not on equal footing with developed ones.

The basic principle in development is education. It would be hard for societies to develop globally if more than 50% of a nation's popuplation is not only below the poverty line but also mal-educated.

With so much stress on different countries' government budget on defense, infrastructure, tourism and so little on education we can see no end to the cycle, for at least 2 more generations.

While it is true that it would be better to teach people to fish instead of just giving them fish, in reality, teaching people to fish is educating them, not only to get higher paying jobs, but to form them as possible entrepreneurs.

Globalisation is not about big corporations, but more about entrepreneurship...

Replying to [Street Smart]:DearRanger,
I agree with you that globalisation is not the answer to breaking poverty cycle.
In my example too, poverty cycle is broken by sound organisational skills and proper marketing strategy which helps 2.41 milion milk suppliers who are stock holders, and indirectly to dealers and service providers and there employees which will be another million strong.
Sixer

Replying to [Street Smart]:
Globalisation can not break the Poverty Cycle. because
the developed countries make policies in their interest/favour
to get maximum benefits of Globalisation, therefore Non-develop countries remain behind. and we can see higher percentage of poverty among Non-Developed countries.
If Non-Developed countries creat their own organization like GATE
and NATO, then can creat Trade Policies in their favour/interest
and at that time we can say GLOBALISATION BREAK THE
POVERTY CYCLE.
Please Advise....
ID int786

I'm not so certain that globalization can or will break the poverty cycle, because the root-cause of our poverty problem is chronic over-population on a global scale.

Employers will only pay wages which the labor market will support, and nothing higher than that. In other words, because the demand for labor is low while the supply is absurdly high, employers will tend to pay wages that are just barely high enough to retain an employee, but not high enough to grant them a higher standard of living.

You can see proof of this in the new industrial facilities that have recently opened in the northern areas of Mexico. In this case, unskilled production workers, who make up the bulk of the work force, earn approximately 5 USD a day. If they are unwilling to do the job for 5 USD a day, the employer can easily find a new employee, who will do the job for 4.5 USD a day.

The result, before we had unemployed poor, and now we have working-class poor. While at the same time, their standard of living has not improved significantly. Maybe a few new toys for the children, but that's about it.

A handful will get rich, or wealthier, but the majority will sink lower as the world's resources must be sliced thinner and thinner.Less, land, water, food, and so on.

Our only hope is some radical break through in technology.

I did think the question wasn't meant as a debate and noted that some answers were treating it so.  It is merely asking for success stories on how globalization has been successful at breaking the poverty cycle.  There are evidences in many counries that globalization does produce winners, as well as losers, among the poor.  So globalization has the potential to break the poverty cycle if it is more development oriented rather than pure economics oriented, if it can create more winners than losers among the poorest of the poor everywhere.  Evidence also suggests that the poor are more likely to share in the gains from globalization when there are complementary policies in place, such as investments in human capital and infrastructure, promotion of micro and other credit and technical assistance to farmers, and promotion of macroeconomic stability. 

macs2005

Replying to [Street Smart]:It is a long way to slash poverty. This great goal need all of us to think big and do more.

Replying to [Street Smart]:

Globalization, if the right kinds of policies are implementation has the power to eradicate poverty. However, irrespective of globalization, it's the people at power in a country who can be the real force behind to wipe out poverty from the face of the planet.

Indeed it's easy said than done. Every thing boils down to Food, Cloths, Shelter and Security. Most of the countries in the world produce enough to feed their respective country's population. But are we using the resources available in a very wise and economic manner. NO. Most of the governments don't do that. Their policies support those who are in power.

First the mindset of the people has to change with time else we will find a section of the society cutting across all the countries will be wiped out of this planet...

But globalization provides the right kind of tools in the hands of the government and it’s up to them how good they make use of it.